Metacognitive processes and associations to executive function and motivation during a problem-solving task in 3–5 year olds
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Previous studies investigating whether monitoring might be a predictor of executive functions found no significant link.
“However, previous studies investigating if monitoring might be a predictor of EF found no significant link.”
From Longitudinal associations between executive functions and metacognitive monitoring in 5- to 8-year-olds (2022) · cites this paper as Marulis & Nelson (2021)
In children aged 3-5 years, there is no significant association between procedural metacognition and executive functions.
“Similarly, Marulis & Nelson (2021) found no significant association between procedural MC and EF in children aged 3-5 years.”
From Longitudinal associations between executive functions and metacognitive monitoring in 5- to 8-year-olds (2022) · cites this paper as Marulis & Nelson (2021)
Marulis & Nelson (2021) found that only metacognitive knowledge but not procedural MC was a significant predictor of EF in 3-to 5-year-old children.
“They found that only metacognitive knowledge but not procedural MC was a significant predictor of EF.”
From Longitudinal associations between executive functions and metacognitive monitoring in 5- to 8-year-olds (2022) · cites this paper as Marulis & Nelson (2021)
Marulis & Nelson (2021) found that only metacognitive knowledge, but not procedural MC, was predictive for EF.
“This interpretation would also be in line with Marulis & Nelson (2021) finding that only metacognitive knowledge, but not procedural MC, was predictive for EF.”
From Longitudinal associations between executive functions and metacognitive monitoring in 5- to 8-year-olds (2022) · cites this paper as Marulis & Nelson (2021)
Previous studies either did not include a shifting measure or used a composite score for EF.
“Regarding the relation between shifting and MC, there is not much known since previous studies either did not include a shifting measure (Bryce et al., 2015) or used a composite score for EF (Destan & Roebers, 2015;Marulis & Nelson, 2021).”
From Longitudinal associations between executive functions and metacognitive monitoring in 5- to 8-year-olds (2022) · cites this paper as Marulis & Nelson, 2021
Cites
Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry
Flavell, J. H. (1979) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.34.10.906 · Cited by 11,282 · see citing works
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721411429458 · Cited by 3,944 · see citing works
Blair, C., & Razza, R. P. (2007) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01019.x · Cited by 3,140 · see citing works
Handbook of Metacognition in Education
Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (2009) · doi:10.4324/9780203876428 · Cited by 1,509 · see citing works
Efklides, A. (2011) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.538645 · Cited by 1,211 · see citing works
How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively?
Dignath, C., Buettner, G., & Langfeldt, H.-P. (2008) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2008.02.003 · Cited by 903 · cited 4× · see citing works
“Since that time, researchers have provided extensive empirical evidence—including several meta-analyses—that Mc is critical to academic success even after controlling for cognitive and other self-regulated learning—SRL—(e.g., motivation) factors (e.g., Dignath et al. 2008; Wang et al. 1990).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialThe structure of executive function in 3-year-olds.
Wiebe, S. A., Sheffield, T., Nelson, J. M., Clark, C. A. C., Chevalier, N., & Espy, K. A. (2011) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.08.008 · Cited by 776 · see citing works
Roebers, C. M., Cimeli, P., Röthlisberger, M., & Neuenschwander, R. (2012) · Metacognition and Learning · doi:10.1007/s11409-012-9089-9 · Cited by 183 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kälin, S., & Roebers, C. M. (2022) · Metacognition and Learning · doi:10.1007/s11409-022-09306-x · Cited by 27 · see citing works
- Authors
- Marulis, L. M., & Nelson, L. J.
- Venue
- Metacognition and Learning
- Published
- 2020-10-17
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 207-231
- ISSN
- 1556-1623
- 1556-1631
- Cited by
- 55
- References
- 8
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
